-----Original Message----- From: libvirt-cim-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:libvirt-cim- bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rupert Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:10 PM To: List for discussion and development of libvirt CIM Subject: Re: [Libvirt-cim] What does NumberOfBlocks and ConsumableBlocks in theXen_Memory class represent? Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: > All, > > I am trying to understand the use of NumberOfBlocks and ConsumableBlocks in the Xen_Memory class, specifically for the Xen host. > What I have noticed is that between libvirt-cim-0.4.1 and libvirt- cim-0.5.2 the values for NumberOfBlock is now different than ConsumableBlocks and > much larger than the physical memory installed on the system. > Is it the case that NumberOfBlocks represents the maximum possible blocks for the hardware, > or some such number ConsumableBlocks is the memory that is > actually installed in the system? On my system, however, NumberOfBlocks reports 16TB where /proc/meminfo > reports 32Tb for VmallocTotal. In short, should I be using ConsumableBlocks to determine the total physical memory on the system? Hi Dayne, It looks like there is a bug here. Currently, the providers use the following representation: NumberOfBlocks: max amount of memory that can be allocated to a guest ConsumableBlocks: current memory allocated to the guest However, these values should be reversed based on the attribute definitions. Here's an example using one of the guests on my system: # virsh dominfo rstest_domainId: - Name: rstest_domain UUID: 746de06d-cb45-4efd-bc18-bf91d10bec84 State: shut off CPU(s): 1 Max memory: 131072 kB Used memory: 130048 kB Autostart: disable We take the max and used memory values libvirt reports and then convert them based on the block size. # wbemcli gi 'http://localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memo ry",DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerS ystem",SystemName="rstest_domain"' -nl localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memory",Devi ceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem",S ystemName="rstest_domain" <snip> -TransitioningToState=12 -SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem" -SystemName="rstest_domain" -CreationClassName="Xen_Memory" -DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem" <snip> -BlockSize=4096 -NumberOfBlocks=32768 -ConsumableBlocks=32512 <snip> -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim

Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: > Kaitlin, > > Thanks for the correction. It seems were trying to use these properties correctly and there is something just not right. Using the same wbemcli command I get: > > -SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem" > -SystemName="Domain-0" > -CreationClassName="Xen_Memory" > -DeviceID="Domain-0/mem" > > -ConsumableBlocks=1717760 > -NumberOfBlocks=4294967040 > -BlockSize=4096 Yes, that's definitely a bug. The values for ConsumableBlocks and NumberOfBlocks should be swapped. I'd hoped to have a bugfix out today, but it looks like it'll be tomorrow.

> > One difference I did notice is that we are trying to use these values from Dom0 to determine the amount of available memory for guests to use. Perhaps for Dom0 these values just map differently. > > My objective is to identify how much memory is available on the hypervisor that can be allocated to new guests. Looking more closely, I wonder if we should be using Xen_MemoryPool somehow to do this instead. What is the relationship between the Capacity and Reserved properties? I have not quite been able to make sense out of what these values mean. What I have noticed is that a host with no defined guests starts with Reserved smaller than Capacity: > > -PoolID="MemoryPool/0" > -Primordial=FALSE > -Capacity=8385536 > -Reserved=8064748 > -ResourceType=4 > -OtherResourceType= > -ResourceSubType= > -AllocationUnits="KiloBytes" > > As guests are create and start the Reserved count increases and grows beyond the capacity. I am not quite sure how to make use of this information. Do you have any insights? The Capacity value is the memory value libvirt reports for the host (you'd also get this value if you use: virsh nodeinfo). The Reserved value is the some of all the memory that is currently allocated to the guests on the system (as reported by libvirt). This includes guests that aren't running, which is why you are seeing the value grow beyond capacity. We don't represent the host capabilities, but in the case of Xen, you can get around that by pulling some things from Dom0. However, using Dom0's attribute may not give you the full picture you're looking for. I would suggest taking a look at a provider set that represents the host information. Something like the sblim-base providers should this info. > > > Dayne > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: libvirt-cim-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:libvirt-cim- >> bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rupert >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:10 PM >> To: List for discussion and development of libvirt CIM >> Subject: Re: [Libvirt-cim] What does NumberOfBlocks and >> ConsumableBlocks in theXen_Memory class represent? >> >> Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I am trying to understand the use of NumberOfBlocks and >> ConsumableBlocks in the Xen_Memory class, specifically for the Xen >> host. >>> What I have noticed is that between libvirt-cim-0.4.1 and libvirt- >> cim-0.5.2 the values for NumberOfBlock is now different than >> ConsumableBlocks and >> > much larger than the physical memory installed on the system. >>> Is it the case that NumberOfBlocks represents the maximum possible >> blocks for the hardware, >> > or some such number ConsumableBlocks is the memory that is >>> actually installed in the system? On my system, however, >> NumberOfBlocks reports 16TB where /proc/meminfo >>> reports 32Tb for VmallocTotal. In short, should I be using >> ConsumableBlocks to determine the total physical memory on the system? >> >> >> Hi Dayne, >> >> It looks like there is a bug here. Currently, the providers use the >> following representation: >> >> NumberOfBlocks: max amount of memory that can be allocated to a guest >> ConsumableBlocks: current memory allocated to the guest >> >> However, these values should be reversed based on the attribute >> definitions. >> >> Here's an example using one of the guests on my system: >> >> # virsh dominfo rstest_domainId: - >> Name: rstest_domain >> UUID: 746de06d-cb45-4efd-bc18-bf91d10bec84 >> State: shut off >> CPU(s): 1 >> Max memory: 131072 kB >> Used memory: 130048 kB >> Autostart: disable >> >> We take the max and used memory values libvirt reports and then convert >> them based on the block size. >> >> # wbemcli gi >> 'http://localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memo >> ry",DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerS >> ystem",SystemName="rstest_domain"' >> -nl >> localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memory",Devi >> ceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem",S >> ystemName="rstest_domain" >> <snip> >> >> -TransitioningToState=12 >> -SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem" >> -SystemName="rstest_domain" >> -CreationClassName="Xen_Memory" >> -DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem" >> >> <snip> >> >> -BlockSize=4096 >> -NumberOfBlocks=32768 >> -ConsumableBlocks=32512 >> >> <snip> >> -- >> Kaitlin Rupert >> IBM Linux Technology Center >> kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libvirt-cim mailing list >> Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim > > _______________________________________________ > Libvirt-cim mailing list > Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim

Hi Dayne, Let me sort of work backwards here.. > Currently, on this system ConsumableBlocks represent MemTotal or the > current memory allocated to the guest, even though it is not > completely accurately representing the free memory on Dom0 that is > available to new DomUs. The issue is that between version 0.4.1 and > 0.5.2 NumberOfBlocks for a Dom0 changed to be MaxInt. It used to > match ConsumableBlocks.

Correct - that's what the bug is here. A regression was introduced.

In 0.4.1: -NumberOfBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest -ConsumableBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest\

In 0.5.2: -NumberOfBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest -ConsumableBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest

So this should definitely be fixed since we aren't adhering to the definitions in the mof... > I think there is something else going on here. As far as I can tell > the numbers are not swapped. Here is what I think is going on. The > NumberOfBlock x BlockSize equates to about 16TB (not what my system Ah, my mistake. When I read your previous message, I thought you were talking about the issue above.

The values do seem strange. We use the following calculation: NumberOfBlocks = (max_mem * 1024) / BlockSize ConsumableBlocks = (used_mem * 1024) / BlockSize

Agreed - NumberOfBlocks is puzzling: (4294967040 / 1024) * 4096 = 17179865088 KB

ConsumableBlocks is correct though: (6595584 * 1024) / 4096 = 1648896 What does "xm list -l Domain-0" return for memory and maxmem? I don't have a Xen system with that much mem to test on.

> has - my system only has 8GB). If you look at virsh dominfo Domain- 0 > on my box I get: > > Max memory: no limit > Used memory: 6595584 kB > > If NumberOfBlocks is MaxInt (of some sort) than this would make some sort of sense and ConsumableBlocks contains the correct value. It is a little bit misleading since processes in Dom0 take memory away from what can be allocated to a DomU. This is evident from this /proc/meminfo snippet: > > MemTotal: 6595584 kB > MemFree: 5940684 kB > Buffers: 16112 kB > Cached: 264716 kB > SwapCached: 0 kB > Active: 138332 kB > Inactive: 216032 kB > SwapTotal: 2626544 kB > SwapFree: 2626544 kB > Dirty: 436 kB > ... > VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB > VmallocUsed: 267184 kB > VmallocChunk: 34359470859 kB > DirectMap4k: 8066284 kB > DirectMap2M: 0 kB > > > The current WBEM values: > > -ConsumableBlocks=1648896 > -NumberOfBlocks=4294967040 > -BlockSize=4096 Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: >> Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: >>> Kaitlin, >>> >>> Thanks for the correction. It seems were trying to use these >> properties correctly and there is something just not right. Using the >> same wbemcli command I get: >>> -SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem" >>> -SystemName="Domain-0" >>> -CreationClassName="Xen_Memory" >>> -DeviceID="Domain-0/mem" >>> >>> -ConsumableBlocks=1717760 >>> -NumberOfBlocks=4294967040 >>> -BlockSize=4096 >> Yes, that's definitely a bug. The values for ConsumableBlocks and >> NumberOfBlocks should be swapped. I'd hoped to have a bugfix out >> today, >> but it looks like it'll be tomorrow. > > > I think there is something else going on here. As far as I can tell the numbers are not swapped. Here is what I think is going on. The NumberOfBlock x BlockSize equates to about 16TB (not what my system has - my system only has 8GB). If you look at virsh dominfo Domain-0 on my box I get: > > Max memory: no limit > Used memory: 6595584 kB > > If NumberOfBlocks is MaxInt (of some sort) than this would make some sort of sense and ConsumableBlocks contains the correct value. It is a little bit misleading since processes in Dom0 take memory away from what can be allocated to a DomU. This is evident from this /proc/meminfo snippet: > > MemTotal: 6595584 kB > MemFree: 5940684 kB > Buffers: 16112 kB > Cached: 264716 kB > SwapCached: 0 kB > Active: 138332 kB > Inactive: 216032 kB > SwapTotal: 2626544 kB > SwapFree: 2626544 kB > Dirty: 436 kB > ... > VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB > VmallocUsed: 267184 kB > VmallocChunk: 34359470859 kB > DirectMap4k: 8066284 kB > DirectMap2M: 0 kB > > > The current WBEM values: > > -ConsumableBlocks=1648896 > -NumberOfBlocks=4294967040 > -BlockSize=4096 > > Currently, on this system ConsumableBlocks represent MemTotal or the current memory allocated to the guest, even though it is not completely accurately representing the free memory on Dom0 that is available to new DomUs. The issue is that between version 0.4.1 and 0.5.2 NumberOfBlocks for a Dom0 changed to be MaxInt. It used to match ConsumableBlocks. I don't think there is an issue and I can work with this now that I understand it. > > > As you point out below, I am probably not going to be able to get the information I want out of Xen_MemoryPool. > > Thanks for your help and insight. > > > Dayne > > > > > >>> One difference I did notice is that we are trying to use these values >> from Dom0 to determine the amount of available memory for guests to >> use. Perhaps for Dom0 these values just map differently. >> >> >>> My objective is to identify how much memory is available on the >> hypervisor that can be allocated to new guests. Looking more closely, >> I wonder if we should be using Xen_MemoryPool somehow to do this >> instead. What is the relationship between the Capacity and Reserved >> properties? I have not quite been able to make sense out of what these >> values mean. What I have noticed is that a host with no defined guests >> starts with Reserved smaller than Capacity: >>> -PoolID="MemoryPool/0" >>> -Primordial=FALSE >>> -Capacity=8385536 >>> -Reserved=8064748 >>> -ResourceType=4 >>> -OtherResourceType= >>> -ResourceSubType= >>> -AllocationUnits="KiloBytes" >>> >>> As guests are create and start the Reserved count increases and grows >> beyond the capacity. I am not quite sure how to make use of this >> information. Do you have any insights? >> >> The Capacity value is the memory value libvirt reports for the host >> (you'd also get this value if you use: virsh nodeinfo). >> >> The Reserved value is the some of all the memory that is currently >> allocated to the guests on the system (as reported by libvirt). This >> includes guests that aren't running, which is why you are seeing the >> value grow beyond capacity. >> >> We don't represent the host capabilities, but in the case of Xen, you >> can get around that by pulling some things from Dom0. >> >> However, using Dom0's attribute may not give you the full picture >> you're >> looking for. I would suggest taking a look at a provider set that >> represents the host information. Something like the sblim-base >> providers should this info. >> >>> >>> Dayne >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: libvirt-cim-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:libvirt-cim- >>>> bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rupert >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:10 PM >>>> To: List for discussion and development of libvirt CIM >>>> Subject: Re: [Libvirt-cim] What does NumberOfBlocks and >>>> ConsumableBlocks in theXen_Memory class represent? >>>> >>>> Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to understand the use of NumberOfBlocks and >>>> ConsumableBlocks in the Xen_Memory class, specifically for the Xen >>>> host. >>>>> What I have noticed is that between libvirt-cim-0.4.1 and libvirt- >>>> cim-0.5.2 the values for NumberOfBlock is now different than >>>> ConsumableBlocks and >>>> > much larger than the physical memory installed on the system. >>>>> Is it the case that NumberOfBlocks represents the maximum possible >>>> blocks for the hardware, >>>> > or some such number ConsumableBlocks is the memory that is >>>>> actually installed in the system? On my system, however, >>>> NumberOfBlocks reports 16TB where /proc/meminfo >>>>> reports 32Tb for VmallocTotal. In short, should I be using >>>> ConsumableBlocks to determine the total physical memory on the >> system? >>>> >>>> Hi Dayne, >>>> >>>> It looks like there is a bug here. Currently, the providers use the >>>> following representation: >>>> >>>> NumberOfBlocks: max amount of memory that can be allocated to a >> guest >>>> ConsumableBlocks: current memory allocated to the guest >>>> >>>> However, these values should be reversed based on the attribute >>>> definitions. >>>> >>>> Here's an example using one of the guests on my system: >>>> >>>> # virsh dominfo rstest_domainId: - >>>> Name: rstest_domain >>>> UUID: 746de06d-cb45-4efd-bc18-bf91d10bec84 >>>> State: shut off >>>> CPU(s): 1 >>>> Max memory: 131072 kB >>>> Used memory: 130048 kB >>>> Autostart: disable >>>> >>>> We take the max and used memory values libvirt reports and then >> convert >>>> them based on the block size. >>>> >>>> # wbemcli gi >>>> >> 'http://localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memo >> ry",DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerS >>>> ystem",SystemName="rstest_domain"' >>>> -nl >>>> >> localhost:5988/root/virt:Xen_Memory.CreationClassName="Xen_Memory",Devi >> ceID="rstest_domain/mem",SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem",S >>>> ystemName="rstest_domain" >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> -TransitioningToState=12 >>>> -SystemCreationClassName="Xen_ComputerSystem" >>>> -SystemName="rstest_domain" >>>> -CreationClassName="Xen_Memory" >>>> -DeviceID="rstest_domain/mem" >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> -BlockSize=4096 >>>> -NumberOfBlocks=32768 >>>> -ConsumableBlocks=32512 >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> -- >>>> Kaitlin Rupert >>>> IBM Linux Technology Center >>>> kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Libvirt-cim mailing list >>>> Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Libvirt-cim mailing list >>> Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim >> >> -- >> Kaitlin Rupert >> IBM Linux Technology Center >> kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libvirt-cim mailing list >> Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim > > _______________________________________________ > Libvirt-cim mailing list > Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim

> Isn't this backwards from your original message? Or did I just misunderstand? Interestingly, what I see for a DomU with maxmem=1024 and memory=512 in 0.4.1 is the following: In my original message, I was talking about the current implementation - which would be 0.5.1 and newer.

> > -ConsumableBlocks=262144 > -NumberOfBlocks=131072 > -BlockSize=4096 > > Which is consistent with what you just stated about 0.4.1 and reverse of what you said in your original response. Correct - sorry for the confusion. My original response was indicating the way the providers behave currently.

> >> In 0.5.2: >> -NumberOfBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest >> -ConsumableBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest > > What I see in 0.5.2 for a DomU with maxmem=1024 and memory=512 is: > > -ConsumableBlocks=131072 > -NumberOfBlocks=262144 > -BlockSize=4096 > It looks like the behavior you're seeing is consistent with the last email I sent - so we're on the same page, I think. =)

> > I am pretty new at deciphering MOF files, but if I understand the mof, NumberOfBlocks should be the maximum as in the NumberOfBlock x BlockSize = total size of > memory (I think this mean maximum memory). I believe the MOF says > ConsumableBlocks is the number of blocks available for consumption, or the actual memory assigned to the guest. If I understand this right, it is actually 0.4.1 > that is reversed and 0.5.2 contains the correction, yes? I reread the mof, and you are correct. So this doesn't appear to be a regression at all.

> > In either case I am going to have to figure out how to tell if I am talking to a 0.4.1 libvirt-CIM or 0.5.2 .. and where the change happened .. *sigh* ... so I can handle it appropriately as one of them is not right. Yes, unfortunately. You can get the version from the VirtualSystemManagementService -

> It looks like you are just reporting what libvirt is telling you ... very interesting. BTW: I don't actually have 16Tb of memory either, I only have 8Gb. Yes, we pull the value from libvirt and then convert that value in to blocks.

In this case, libvirt is pulling from Xen. My guess is that the Xen or libvirt behavior has changed, which is why you may see the value reported change across different versions of Xen / libvirt.

> > It looks like we are honing in on the problem. Based on everything I said above, I believe libvirt-CIM 0.4.1 to be flawed and libvirt-CIM 0.5.2 to be correct. Does this sound about right? Do you have any idea where it may have changed? Thanks for your patience. Yes, agreed. Here's the change: http://libvirt.org/hg/libvirt-cim/rev/2796fd3e2eaa We parse the guest XML (essentially virsh dumpxml) to get the various attributes of a guest. The problem in 0.4.1 is that we were storing the memory values in the wrong structures. We later use these struct values in src/Virt_Device.c (starting at line 143). My concern in my original email was that the values were reversed here as well, but as you pointed out, the values are set correctly.

> > Just for confirmation, does this mean that for anything 0.5.1 and newer I should expect: > > -NumberOfBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest > -ConsumableBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest > > And for anything older than 0.5.1 I should expect: > > -NumberOfBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest > -ConsumableBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest Yes, that's correct. We're one the same page here. Sorry for the confusing detour there. ;) -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim

-----Original Message----- From: libvirt-cim-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:libvirt-cim- bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rupert Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:51 PM To: List for discussion and development of libvirt CIM Subject: Re: [Libvirt-cim] What does NumberOfBlocks and ConsumableBlocks in the Xen_Memory class represent? Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: > Kaitlin, > > Do you know if I can rely on a standard format for the Revision field in VirtualSystemManagementService class? Looking at the code I see it is provided as a build variable "-DLIBVIRT_CIM_RV=" that gets set in the acinclude.m4 script. > I suppose any of the distributions can label > this any way they see fit. Right - the distros have control over how they wish to set this value. > So far I have seen: > > SLES11: 0.5.2 > RHEL5.3: 613+ Upstream, we use the changeset and the revision numbers from mercurial. The problem the distros face is that that they may be using 0.5.2 as a base, but they will have their own patches applied - some from upstream libvirt-cim and some from in house. > > Our 0.4.1 build: 590 > Current testing builds: 875 > > Any thought on any standard format? I don't know of an easy way to force a standard format since its up to the distros discretion to change whatever method we go with. It might be possible to use a combination of the distro package version and the Revision values from the VirtualSystemManagementService class. > Do you know what the build number was for 0.5.1 (somewhere between 590 and 613)? At the moment I am planning to handle the x.x.x and x\D+ cases. If anyone has any other thoughts or experiences I am open to them. 0.5.1 is 657 - you can check out the release versions at: http://libvirt.org/hg/libvirt-cim/tags 613 is somewhere between 0.4.0 (590) and 0.5.0 (632). Unfortunately, I'm not coming up with an easy way as to how to handle the difference in the distros. We have to detect the libvirt version, which we do using a acinclude.m4 based on the version the distro reports. That might be a more reliable way, but it's less dynamic. We could add a release attribute to libvirt-cim (in addition to the changeset and revision values), but that won't help you with existing versions. > > Thanks. > > Dayne > > > >>> Just for confirmation, does this mean that for anything 0.5.1 and >> newer I should expect: >>> -NumberOfBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest >>> -ConsumableBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest >>> >>> And for anything older than 0.5.1 I should expect: >>> >>> -NumberOfBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest >>> -ConsumableBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest >> Yes, that's correct. We're one the same page here. Sorry for the >> confusing detour there. ;) >> >> -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim

Kaitlin, Just a follow-up. I think your idea of adding a release attribute is a good one. All three values (release, revision, and changeset) would allow a more precise way to pin functionality to builds. I would expect the release to reflect the latest official release number (currently 0.5.2 I believe) with the running revisions and changesets demarking changes off the release, i.e. currently: release 0.5.2, revision 875, changeset: cde25ad65c74+.

Thanks for all your help. Dayne > -----Original Message----- > From: libvirt-cim-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:libvirt-cim- > bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rupert > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:51 PM > To: List for discussion and development of libvirt CIM > Subject: Re: [Libvirt-cim] What does NumberOfBlocks and > ConsumableBlocks in the Xen_Memory class represent? > > Medlyn, Dayne (VSL - Ft Collins) wrote: >> Kaitlin, >> >> Do you know if I can rely on a standard format for the Revision field, > in VirtualSystemManagementService class? Looking at the code I see it > is provided as a build variable "-DLIBVIRT_CIM_RV=" that gets set in > the acinclude.m4 script. >> I suppose any of the distributions can label >> this any way they see fit. > Right - the distros have control over how they wish to set this value. > >> So far I have seen: >> >> SLES11: 0.5.2 >> RHEL5.3: 613+ > Upstream, we use the changeset and the revision numbers from mercurial. > The problem the distros face is that that they may be using 0.5.2 as a > base, but they will have their own patches applied - some from upstream > libvirt-cim and some from in house. > >> Our 0.4.1 build: 590 >> Current testing builds: 875 >> >> Any thought on any standard format? > I don't know of an easy way to force a standard format since its up to > the distros discretion to change whatever method we go with. > > It might be possible to use a combination of the distro package version > and the Revision values from the VirtualSystemManagementService class. > >> Do you know what the build number was for 0.5.1 (somewhere between > 590 and 613)? At the moment I am planning to handle the x.x.x and x\D+ > cases. If anyone has any other thoughts or experiences I am open to > them. > > 0.5.1 is 657 - you can check out the release versions at: > http://libvirt.org/hg/libvirt-cim/tags > > 613 is somewhere between 0.4.0 (590) and 0.5.0 (632). > > Unfortunately, I'm not coming up with an easy way as to how to handle > the difference in the distros. We have to detect the libvirt version, > which we do using a acinclude.m4 based on the version the distro > reports. That might be a more reliable way, but it's less dynamic. > > We could add a release attribute to libvirt-cim (in addition to the > changeset and revision values), but that won't help you with existing > versions. > >> Thanks. >> >> Dayne >> >> >> >>>> Just for confirmation, does this mean that for anything 0.5.1 and >>> newer I should expect: >>>> -NumberOfBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest >>>> -ConsumableBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest >>>> >>>> And for anything older than 0.5.1 I should expect: >>>> >>>> -NumberOfBlocks the memory currently assigned to the guest >>>> -ConsumableBlocks the maximum memory allocated to the guest >>> Yes, that's correct. We're one the same page here. Sorry for the >>> confusing detour there. ;) >>> >>> > > -- > Kaitlin Rupert > IBM Linux Technology Center > kaitlin(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com > > _______________________________________________ > Libvirt-cim mailing list > Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim _______________________________________________ Libvirt-cim mailing list Libvirt-cim(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-cim